Although living with different social and cultural background, the two writers, Oe and Gao came to the same scheme; to re-write the history of their time and to reconstitute a projective identity by the myth-making in their novels. / My study aims to feature the concept of "archetype" or "archetypal structure", the basic cluster of myth in Oe and Gao's novels, in order to discern the final determination of the two writers in terms of their search on the expressive power of language and their strategy of their myth-making. By applying Frye's theory, I would like to explore the hidden ideological significance behind Oe and Gao's novels. / Oe Kenzaburo and Gao Xingjian are two significant Asian writers in contemporary literary world. Not only because of their achievement as Nobel Prize laureates, but also because of their commitment to the creation of "myth" in modem time, a "modem myth" which surpasses the limit of literature to become a cultural exertion, a story of resistance against the existing ideology within their specific social contexts. / The tendency of "return to myth" in the works of Oe and Gao made their novels, specifically The Silent Cry and Soul Mountain to become a meaning system by displacing the archetypal motifs in Japanese and Chinese ancient mythology to a modem situation. This refers the reader to a familiar analogy in order to guide the reader to accept and believe what the writers said is true. / Wan, Mu. / "Jan 2010." / Adviser: Leo Lee Ou-Fan. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 73-04, Section: A, page: . / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 309-322). / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Electronic reproduction. [Ann Arbor, MI] : ProQuest Information and Learning, [201-] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstract also in Chinese.

Tese (doutorado)—Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Letras, Departamento de Teoria Literária e Literaturas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Literatura, 2012. / Submitted by Albânia Cézar de Melo (albania@bce.unb.br) on 2013-01-11T11:30:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2012_DonatellaNatili.pdf: 8778076 bytes, checksum: 9b1ed24c6acf8af0bc35a507420102e6 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Luanna Maia(luanna@bce.unb.br) on 2013-01-28T11:32:55Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2012_DonatellaNatili.pdf: 8778076 bytes, checksum: 9b1ed24c6acf8af0bc35a507420102e6 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-01-28T11:32:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2012_DonatellaNatili.pdf: 8778076 bytes, checksum: 9b1ed24c6acf8af0bc35a507420102e6 (MD5) / O Prêmio Nobel, conferido pela primeira vez ao Japão em 1968, com a escolha de Kawabata Yasunari, representou para a literatura japonesa um marco entre um passado de marginalidade cultural, de um Japão considerado “periférico” e “exótico” em relação à Europa e Américas, e um presente de inserção e integração em nível internacional. Considerando que o Nobel existia há 67 anos, tratava-se de um prêmio tardio para uma literatura de extraordinária riqueza como a japonesa, mas, ao mesmo tempo, era o reconhecimento de o Japão pertencer ao mundo da cultura, e por esta razão, assumiu um significado simbólico muito além do real prestígio do Prêmio. Quando, em 1994, o Prêmio Nobel é conferido também a Ōe Kenzaburō, delineia-se uma situação na qual os dois únicos autores premiados, também testemunhas dos dois únicos momentos em que a literatura (e a cultura) japonesa destaca-se em uma premiação internacional, tornam-se pontos de referência pelo fato de representar realidades e visões culturais diferentes, às vezes antitéticas, irrenunciáveis para a formação da identidade da literatura japonesa (uma formação provocada pelo contato com o “Outro”). Uma comparação entre os dois autores foi inevitável, como o mesmo Ōe tem demonstrado, quando escolheu fazer um discurso em que polemizava com Kawabata... É um caso único da história do Nobel que contrapõe duas Weltanshauung muito diferentes: a Beleza versus Ambiguidade, a Evasão na tradição contra a Ruptura dos paradigmas culturais. Estes são os temas sobre os quais este trabalho propõe-se a refletir. ______________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT / The Nobel Prize, first awarded in 1968 to Japan, with the choice of Kawabata Yasunari, represented, for Japanese literature, a landmark between a background of cultural marginality – a Japan considered a “peripheral” and “exotic” in relation to Europe and the Americas – and a present of insertion and integration at an international level. Whereas as the Nobel existed for sixty-seven years, it was a prize for a later literature of extraordinary richness as the Japanese, but at the same time, it was the recognition for Japan to belong to the world of culture, and for this reason assumed a symbolic significance far beyond the real prestige of the award. When, in 1994, the Nobel Prize was also awarded to Ōe Kenzaburō, it outlined a situation in which the only two winning authors – also witnesses of the only two times in the literature (and culture) Japanese stands out in an international award – become reference points for the fact of representing different cultural realities and visions, sometimes antithetical, indispensable to the formation of the identity of the Japanese literature (a formation caused by contact with the “Other”). A comparison between the two authors was inevitable, as the same Ōe has shown, when he chose to make a speech in which he polemicized with Kawabata... It is a unique case in the history of Nobel which contrasts two very different Weltanshauung: Beauty versus Ambiguity, Evasion in the tradition against Rupture of cultural paradigms. These are the themes on which this thesis proposes to reflect.

(in English): This thesis is devided into three parts. In the fist part, the development of literary discourse in Japan between Meiji and postwar period is described, with emphasis on the development of literary character and Subject in a work of literature. The second part theoretical apparatus for studiying and analyzing literary character is introduced, using contemporary literary theory. In that part relationship between literary character and its subject is also included. In the third part, these findings are applied on a specific literary works of Japanese postwar literature, on which development and changes of literary character are observed. The three analyzed works here are Kamen no kokuhaku by Mishima Yukio, Tanin no kao by Abe Kōbō and Man'en gan'nen no futtobōru by Ōe Kenzaburō.